# Re: What are wavefunctions?

```Jason,

Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the
theory I proposed in my separate topic "Another stab at how spacetime
emerges from quantum events." Please refer to that topic to confirm...```
```
Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the frames
of the spinning particles WHEN they are created falsifies FTL and
non-locality?

Edgar

On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 2:21:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
>
>> On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net <javascript:>>wrote:
>>
>>>  On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net <javascript:>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is just
>>>> one point and when a measurement is performed it projects the system ray
>>>> onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are just some labels.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none
>>> required for the MWI?)
>>>
>>> Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1 x2
>>> y2 z2 s2> and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is correlated at
>>> (x2 y2 z2).  As I understand it the MWI advocates say this isn't FTL
>>> because this is just selecting out one of infinitely many results |s1 s2>.
>>> But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins in a way that violates Bell's
>>> inequality.
>>>
>>
>> If I understand correctly ... actually, let me just check if I do, before
>> I go any further, in case I'm talking out my arse. Which wouldn't be the
>> first time.
>>
>> I assume we're talking about an EPR correlation here?
>>
>> If yes, I've never understood how the MWI explains this.
>>
>
> The thing to remember is entanglement is the same thing as measurement.
>  The entangled pair of particles have measured each other, but they remain
> isolated from the rest of the environment (and thus in a superposition, of
> say UD and DU). Once you as an observer measure either of the two
> particles, you have by extension measured both of them, since the position,
> which you measured has already measured the electron, and now you are
> entangled in their superposition.
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>>  I've see it explained with ASCII diagrams by Bill Taylor on the FOAR
>> forum, and far be it from me to quibble with Bill, but it never made sense
>> to me. Somehow, the various branches just join up correctly...
>>
>> The only explanation I've come across that I really understand for EPR,
>> and that doesn't violate locality etc is the time symmetry one, where all
>> influences travel along the light cone, but are allowed to go either way in
>> time.
>>
>> So although I quite like the MWI because of its ontological implications,
>> this is one point on which I am agnostic, because I don't understand the
>> explanation.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      In fact, it's generally assumed to be very, very STL (unless light
>>>> itself is involved). At great distances from the laboratory, one imagines
>>>> that the superposition caused by whatever we might do to cats in boxes
>>>> would decay to the level of noise, and fail to spread any further.
>>>>
>>>>  That's an interesting viewpoint - but it's taking spacetime instead of
>>>> Hilbert space to be the arena.  If we take the cat, either alive or dead,
>>>> and shoot it off into space then, as a signal, it won't fall off as 1/r^2.
>>>>
>>>>  No, but it will travel STL!
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure.  I was just commenting on the idea that the entanglement has a
>>> kind of limited range because of 'background noise'.  An interesting idea,
>>> similar to one I've had that there is a smallest non-zero probability.
>>>
>>> But if you want to get FTL, that's possible if Alice and Bob are near
>>> opposite sides of our Hubble sphere when they do their measurements.  They
>>> are then already moving apart faster than c and will never be able to
>>> communicate - with each other, but we, in the middle will eventually
>>> receive reports from them so that we can confirm the violation of Bell's
>>> inequality.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, that's a good point. That would, however, fit in nicely with time
>> symmetry (which really needs a nice acronym, I'm not sure "TS" cuts it). I
>> tend to evangelise a bit on time symmetry, but only because everyone else
>> roundly ignores it, and it seems to me that it at least has potential.
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email